MR. ANTHONY MENEZES,CALANGUTE,BARDEZ-GOA. vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(INV), PANAJI-GOA.

TXA/33/2004HC BombayHCBM05002715200421 January 2009Author: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J.,N. A. BRITTO2 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the principles of natural justice were violated as the appellants were not heard before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The learned counsel for the revenue did not contest this assertion. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order of the ITAT. The matter was remanded to the ITAT with a direction to hear the parties afresh and pass an order on merits in accordance with law. No order as to costs was made. The specific findings on the merits of the original dispute before the ITAT were not addressed as the appeal was decided on a procedural ground.

What were the facts?

The appellants, Mrs. Abelina Menezes and Mr. Anthony Menezes, challenged an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) before the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The core of their grievance was that they were not heard, nor was their presence recorded, before the ITAT. This, they contended, constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice. The assessment years are not specified. The appeals were filed against the ITAT's order, and the respondent was the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Inv), Panaji-Goa. The procedural history indicates that the matter reached the High Court after an order from the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by not hearing the appellants or recording their presence before passing its order? (Question of law and fact, concerning procedural fairness). The assessee argued that the ITAT order was bad in law as it violated the principles of natural justice, specifically by not affording them a hearing. The revenue, through its learned counsel, did not contest this position and agreed that the matter could be remanded for a fresh hearing.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA TAX APPEAL NOS. 32 AND 33 OF 2004 TAX APPEAL NO. 32 OF 2004 MRS. ABELINA MENEZES, CALANGUTE-GOA. ... APPELLANT VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(INV), PANAJI-GOA. ... RESPONDENT TAX APPEAL NO. 33 OF 2004 MR. ANTHONY MENEZES, CALANGUTE, BADEZ-GOA. ... APPELLANT VERSUS ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(INV), PANAJI-GOA. ... RESPONDENT Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. S. R. Rivonkar, Advocate for the Respondent.

2 CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & N. A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 21ST JANUARY, 2009. P.C.:- By challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal the grievance is that the Appellant/s were not heard nor their presence was shown before the Tribunal. Thus principle of natural justice has been violated. Learned Counsel for the Department does not contest this position. The matter can be remanded to be heard afresh by the Tribunal. In view of the stand taken by learned Counsel of both parties the order impugned in the present Appeal/s is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal who shall hear the parties and pass an order afresh in accordance with law, on merits of the case. No order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE RD

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →